Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacFan25863, Nov 5, 2006.
Just broke on CNN...
Yup, he's going to be hanged.
Old school. Why no injection?
Yeah, that's a good question. I still can't decide if I'm for or against capital punishment, but hanging seems very barbaric nowadays.
On the other hand, they still stone women to death for trivial things, in places like Saudi Arabia, so I suppose it's up to the culture and people of the country to deem what their punishment system is.
maybe because hanging is less dignified. I spose they could have also done the old hang-draw-and-quater, but the UN might have been a bit sus.
Bloody hell! It's like being back in Robin Hood days.
Wonder if he'll get a mask?
I know it's not my place as I have no connection with Iraq or have any first hand encounters with him, but I'd much rather see him simply locked up for the rest of his life. Guantanamo?
Yeah, swap him with David Hicks.
I'm not always in favour of capital punishment, but... it's sad what he did to the lives of thousands/millions and he should have to pay for it in equal measure - rather than him sitting in a jail wasting iraqi state money waiting on the day when some extremist releases him and reinstates him to power. No thanks.
Urgh, I'd imagine we'll see endless footage of this hanging?
I feel like I'm in a timewarp. I don't think we should give him the scapegoat of death.
Wouldn't that mean Hicks gets hanged?
I know exactly what you mean.
Eep! Not quite what I meant.
Tell me, how does one way of execution seem more "barbaric" than some other way?
Off topic: They don't stone women to death for doing "trivial things" in countries like Saudi Arabia. The only case where a person is stoned to death (man or woman) is when he/she is found guilty of cheating on his/her spouse.
Didn't think so.
So, can we start Bush and Blair's trials now?
So what's gonna happen to the people who gave him the money and weapons to do all those horrible things? When do their trials begin?
It's ****ing disgusting.
Is that a real question? I don't believe in execution but I still think it's a scalar concept. There are varying degrees of barbarity when it comes to killing someone. Hanging someone is graphic and demeaning, not to mention unnecessary.
I fail to see how the punishment fits the crime.
Well hanging involves putting a noose around someone's neck above some gallows, when the gallows are released the person falls, the noose constricts around their neck, usually snapping it enough to kill the person. If not, the noose blocks their airways and they suffocate to death.
Lethal injection is simply that, an injection that kills someone with relatively little pain or other unpleasantness.
That, in my book at least, is the distinction.
Agreed. Perhaps "trivial" wasn't the best phrase to have used, but I was referring more to the method of killing, than the reasoning behind it.
What a surprise...although he was clearly guilty, this was hardly a fair trial. The judicial system would have been destroyed had Saddam won, there was no way on earth that Saddam could have been found guilty, even if the defense had somehow proved that he committed no crime.
howard (PM of Australia) needs to be put on trial as well. the three of them are disgraceful. its a shame they are the leaders of some of the most powerful countries in the world.
Well, Bush and Blair are. We're certainly not one of the most powerful countries in the world.
That's the thing. How do we know that lethal injection kills someone with little pain? Did anyone try it and told us how they felt before dying? If a criminal fastened his victim on a table and injected a lethal substance into the victim's blood vessels, is that called a "humane" way of killing?
It isn't always necessary for the punishment to fit the crime. Actually, almost always the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Lethal injection is quicker, more consistently. Assuming we can take the fact a dead person feels no pain, a lethal injection will knock 'em out quickly. Hanging somebody can be just as quick a lot of the time, but if it goes wrong then it can be a slow and uncomfortable process. We know this because some people have survived hangings and suffocation (which is what would kill him if his neck doesn't break).
How can you say it's not necessary? I agree they don't always match up exactly, but it's hardly fair and just to have a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. If you were found guilty of cheating on someone, would you mind being stoned to death?
Because death is slower, though there is evidence that lethal injection and electrocution aren't very humane as they are unreliable, I've heard the good old guillotine is the best.
I never said it was humane. No form of killing is ever really humane. Lethal injection involves a series of injections, the first being a anaesthetic, which puts them into a deep sleep, just like when someone goes into surgery. People that have surgery to not experience pain, so it's probably that the same goes for the person being killed.
Your example of the criminal injecting someone is completely to it being carried out as a legal form of punishment and therefore devoid of any real argument.